6.0 Introduction

Perception is not just a passive process of using our senses; it’s an active process of interpretation that fundamentally shapes how we communicate and understand the world. It dictates how we craft and interpret messages, form impressions of others, and navigate social interactions. Because perception is inherently subjective, it is a primary source of potential miscommunication, leading to misunderstandings and barriers in our interactions. This chapter unpacks the relationship between perception and communication, examining how perceptual differences arise, how they manifest in communication, and how we can develop strategies to bridge these gaps. By understanding the complexities of perception, you’ll gain the tools to enhance your communication skills, minimize misunderstandings, and foster more effective and meaningful connections.

A Short Story: The Misunderstood Email

Sarah sent an email to her colleague, John, asking him to review the report as soon as possible. To Sarah, “as soon as possible” meant within the next hour, as the report was needed for an urgent meeting. However, John interpreted the phrase to mean by the end of the day, as he was juggling multiple tasks. When Sarah didn’t receive the report in time, she felt frustrated, while John was surprised by her reaction.

This scenario highlights how differences in perception can lead to miscommunication. In this chapter, we’ll explore how perception shapes communication, how to identify perceptual differences, and how to address them to foster clearer and more effective interactions.

6.1 Identify a Situation in Which Perceptions Vary

Perception is the dynamic and active process through which we select, organize, and interpret sensory information from our environment to create a meaningful understanding of the world. It directly influences how we communicate and understand others. This intricate process, known as the perceptual process, allows our brains to construct our reality and typically unfolds in three interconnected stages: selection, organization, and interpretation. Understanding these stages is fundamental because the same communicative situation can be perceived and interpreted in vastly different ways by different individuals, leading to potential miscommunication (Hargie, 2021; Honeycutt & McCann, 2017; Turner et al., 2020; University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing, 2016).

A fundamental cognitive tool that greatly influences each stage of this process is the schema. Schemas are mental structures or frameworks that we develop over time, representing our organized knowledge about concepts, events, people, and roles. They act as cognitive shortcuts, allowing us to quickly process new information by fitting it into pre-existing categories, thus making sense of the world with remarkable efficiency. For instance, you might have a “restaurant” schema that includes elements like menus, waiters, and tables, or a “librarian” schema that evokes traits like quiet and knowledgeable. While schemas are incredibly useful for navigating our complex world, they can also lead to biases or misperceptions when new information doesn’t perfectly align with our pre-existing mental models, influencing what we notice, how we categorize it, and ultimately, how we understand it.

Stages of the Perceptual Process

Selection

During the selection stage, our senses are constantly bombarded with stimuli from the environment. Our sensory receptors (eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and skin) detect various sights, sounds, tastes, odors, and textures. However, we cannot possibly attend to everything; instead, we consciously or unconsciously choose which stimuli to focus on, while largely ignoring others. Our selections are often heavily influenced by our personal interests, current needs, and existing expectations. For example, Shay, on her way to school, realizes she forgot to eat breakfast and is very hungry. As she drives down Mason Street, she is suddenly overwhelmed by the number of restaurants lining the street. Previously, she had only noticed the one fast food restaurant, but her immediate hunger has heightened her awareness, causing her to select and notice all the available food offerings. Another common example occurs when driving: we can quickly notice flashing lights behind us; the distinct red, white, and blue lights of an emergency vehicle stand out from regular headlights, allowing us to rapidly select that urgent stimulus for attention. This selective attention ensures we focus on what is most relevant or potentially impactful to us in the moment.

Organization

Once selected, information moves to the organization stage, where our minds arrange and categorize these chosen stimuli into coherent patterns. We don’t just perceive isolated bits of data; rather, our brains work to structure them in meaningful ways, often relying on principles of proximity, similarity, and closure. For instance, if you see a group of people standing close together, talking and laughing, you’ll likely organize them as a “group of friends” rather than several individual strangers. Similarly, when presented with a series of distinct sounds, you might organize them into a melody if they follow a recognizable pattern. Our existing schemas play a crucial role here, as they provide the mental frameworks into which we sort new information. For example, upon seeing someone dressed in a uniform with a badge, our “police officer” schema helps us organize these visual cues into a recognizable pattern.

Interpretation

Finally, in the interpretation stage, we assign meaning to these organized patterns. This is where our perception becomes highly subjective, as we draw heavily on our personal experiences, past knowledge, beliefs, and cultural backgrounds to understand what we’ve perceived. For example, if two people observe a coworker quietly working late, one might interpret it as “dedicated and hardworking” based on their own experiences with success, while another might interpret it as “unhappy and overworked” based on their past negative experiences in similar job roles. Similarly, a direct gaze might be interpreted as a sign of honesty and engagement in one culture, but as aggression or disrespect in another. This stage is particularly prone to biases because our individual “lenses” shape the ultimate meaning we construct from the world around us. Understanding these perceptual variations is crucial for effective communication, as it helps minimize misunderstandings and navigate interpersonal interactions successfully.

Examples of Situations With Varying Perceptions

Time and Priority

Perception of time and priority can significantly vary between individuals, especially in a professional context. A manager, focused on overall project timelines and strategic goals, might perceive a task as “urgent” if it directly impacts a project outcome or client relationship. They might expect immediate action and around-the-clock attention. An employee, on the other hand, juggling multiple tasks and deadlines, might interpret “urgent” based on their current workload and personal priorities. They might understand it as needing attention within a specific time frame, but not necessarily dropping everything else. This difference in perception can lead to misunderstandings, missed expectations, and potential conflict. Factors contributing to this variation include individual work styles, experience levels, culture, and the specific context of the task within the larger project. For example, a manager and an employee may have different interpretations of what “urgent” means. By misinterpreting “urgent,” it can lead to employees feeling overwhelmed or managers feeling their priorities aren’t being taken seriously. It can also result in delays and inefficiencies if tasks aren’t addressed in the way the manager intended.

Cultural Differences

Culture plays a profound role in shaping our perceptions, particularly when it comes to nonverbal communication. Gestures, symbols, and even the use of space can have vastly different meanings across cultures. For example, the thumbs-up gesture, commonly understood as a sign of approval or agreement in Western cultures, can be seen as an insult or offensive gesture in parts of the Middle East, Latin America, and Australia. These differences arise from the unique historical, social, and linguistic contexts of each culture. What one culture values or considers polite, another might find rude or disrespectful. Cultural misinterpretations can lead to significant misunderstandings, offense, and damaged relationships, especially in cross-cultural interactions in business, travel, or personal life. It highlights the importance of cultural awareness and sensitivity.

Personal Relationships

Perceptions in close relationships are often filtered through past experiences, insecurities, and communication styles. What one partner intends as helpful or constructive comment can be perceived by the other as a personal attack or criticism. For example, one partner might have a history of being criticized, leading them to be more sensitive to any form of feedback. The other partner might be used to direct communication and not realize their feedback is being perceived negatively. Misperceptions in personal relationships can lead to hurt feelings, arguments, and a breakdown in communication and trust. It emphasizes the importance of empathy, clear communication, and understanding each other’s perspectives.

Nonverbal Communication

Perceptions of nonverbal cues can vary significantly depending on the relationship context between individuals. For instance, a lack of eye contact may be interpreted as disinterest in one relationship context but as respect in another. As an example, in a professional setting between a junior employee and a senior executive, a lack of direct eye contact from the junior employee might be interpreted as a sign of respect, deference, or even nervousness. The junior employee might be trying to convey humility and acknowledge the executive’s higher status. However, in a different context, such as a romantic relationship, a partner’s avoidance of eye contact during a conversation might be interpreted as disinterest, dishonesty, or an attempt to avoid confrontation. The partner might perceive this as a sign that the other person is not fully engaged or is hiding something. These differing perceptions arise from the established norms, power dynamics, and communication patterns within each specific relationship context. Misinterpreting nonverbal cues based on relationship context can lead to misunderstandings and inaccurate assessments of the other person’s feelings or intentions. It highlights the importance of considering the specific dynamics of a relationship when interpreting nonverbal signals and the potential for miscommunication if these dynamics are not considered.

6.2 Evaluate the Impact of Perceptual Processes

Our perception shapes how we understand and interact with the world around us, and several key perceptual processes significantly influence our communication (Berger, 2020; Timplalexi, 2023). This section will examine these processes, including selective attention, stereotyping, attribution, the halo effect, and self-serving bias, explaining how each can impact our interpretations of messages and behaviors (Edwards, 2020; Pohl, 2022; McArthur, 2022). Furthermore, we will explore the broader effects of these perceptual processes on communication, highlighting how they can lead to misunderstandings, bias, and conflict in our interactions with others (Edwards et al., 2020; Tindale, 2022). Understanding these processes is crucial for fostering more effective and empathetic communication. However, while these mental shortcuts are incredibly useful, they can also introduce limitations and lead to misinterpretations if we are not aware of how they operate. This section will explore some of the most fundamental perceptual processes, including selective attention, stereotyping, attribution, the halo effect, and self-serving bias, detailing how each shapes our understanding and influences our communication.

Selective Attention

Selective attention is the process of focusing on specific aspects of a message while filtering out irrelevant information. Our brains are constantly bombarded with stimuli, and selective attention acts as a gatekeeper, allowing us to process what we need to while ignoring the rest. This process is influenced by various factors, including our current needs, interests, expectations, and past experiences. However, selective attention can also lead to misinterpretations, as we might miss crucial information by focusing only on certain aspects of a message or situation. For example, a student receives a teacher’s feedback on an essay, which includes both positive comments about their analysis and suggestions for improvement in their writing style. If the student is particularly sensitive to criticism or has a strong desire for perfect grades, they might selectively focus on the negative feedback about their writing style and overlook the positive comments about their analytical skills. This can lead to feelings of discouragement and a failure to recognize their strengths. In communication, selective attention can lead to misunderstandings because individuals may focus on different parts of the message, leading to varied interpretations and potentially ignoring critical information that was intended to be conveyed.

Stereotyping

Stereotyping is a cognitive shortcut where we apply generalized assumptions about a group of people to an individual member of that group. These assumptions can be based on factors like age, gender, ethnicity, occupation, or any other group affiliation. Stereotypes are often oversimplified or inaccurate. There are two types of stereotyping: negative stereotyping focuses on the undesirable characteristics in a group, and positive stereotyping focuses on the favorable traits of the group. Whether positive or negative, stereotyping can lead to prejudice and discrimination. They prevent us from seeing individuals for who they are and can lead to biased judgments and interactions. They may create pressure for individuals to conform to those expectations, overlook the individual’s unique qualities and abilities, and reinforce inequality.

For example, a negative stereotype could be assuming an older colleague is not tech-savvy because of their age. This assumption might lead a younger colleague to avoid involving the older colleague in discussions about new digital tools or to assume they will need excessive help, even if the older colleague is perfectly capable and experienced with technology. This can lead to miscommunication, exclusion, and missed opportunities for collaboration.

An example of a positive stereotype could be assuming that all individuals from a specific racial group are naturally gifted in certain academic subjects, such as math. This assumption might lead a teacher to automatically expect high performance from a student from that group in a math class, overlooking their individual learning needs or interests in other subjects. Conversely, the teacher might fail to provide necessary support, believing the student will excel without it, or even dismiss a student’s struggles as an anomaly. This can limit the teacher’s ability to accurately assess the student’s unique strengths and weaknesses, potentially creating an inappropriate learning environment or even resentment. Stereotypes in communication can lead to biased perceptions and responses. They can result in unfair treatment, misinterpretations of behavior, and a breakdown in trust and understanding between individuals.

Attribution

In communication, the way we assign attributions has far-reaching consequences. Attribution errors can lead to unfair judgments, negative emotions, and unnecessary conflict. When we inaccurately explain others’ behavior, we risk undermining trust, damaging relationships, and reducing the likelihood of collaboration. By becoming more aware of how attribution works, and by recognizing our own biases, we can approach situations with greater empathy, interpret behavior more accurately, and respond in ways that foster understanding rather than conflict.

Attribution is the process of explaining the causes of behavior, both our own and that of others. It is a fundamental part of human interaction because we are constantly trying to understand why people act the way they do. However, we frequently make these judgments with incomplete information, and our explanations are often influenced by personal perceptions and biases. One common mistake is the fundamental attribution error, which occurs when we place too much emphasis on internal factors, such as personality traits or effort, while underestimating external influences, such as circumstances or environmental pressures. Because of these tendencies, attribution is not always objective, yet it plays a powerful role in shaping how we interpret and respond to others’ behaviors. Attributions exist across four spectrums: locus, stability, scope, and responsibility.

Locus: Internal vs. External

The first dimension of attribution, locus, considers whether the cause of behavior lies within the individual (internal) or outside of them (external). An internal attribution might suggest that someone succeeds because of their intelligence or fails because of laziness. In contrast, an external attribution might point to luck, task difficulty, or situational pressures as the explanation for behavior. For instance, if a student earns a poor grade, one person might attribute it internally to lack of effort, while another might attribute it externally to a particularly difficult exam. How we assign these attributions strongly influences our reactions to others.

Stability: Stable vs. Unstable

The second dimension, stability, focuses on whether the cause of a behavior is seen as consistent and enduring (stable), or temporary and changeable (unstable). Stable attributions suggest that the cause will remain the same across time, such as assuming someone always struggles with punctuality. Unstable attributions, however, allow for fluctuation, as when someone arrives late due to an unusual traffic accident or an isolated disruption. Recognizing the difference between stable and unstable causes can affect whether we expect behavior to continue in the future or view it as a one-time occurrence.

Scope: Global vs. Specific

The third dimension, scope, asks whether the cause of behavior influences many areas of a person’s life (global) or only a single situation (specific). A global attribution might assume that a colleague who mishandles a project is generally incompetent, affecting their work across all contexts. A specific attribution, by contrast, limits the explanation to one context, such as concluding that the colleague struggles only with a particular type of task or under specific conditions. Global attributions often lead to broad and unfair judgments, while specific attributions allow for a more nuanced view.

Responsibility: Within Personal Control vs. Outside Personal Control

The fourth dimension, responsibility, considers whether the individual had control over the cause of their behavior. Some actions are perceived as within a person’s control, such as choosing to procrastinate or failing to prepare, while others are clearly outside their control, such as sudden illness, unforeseen emergencies, or technical failures. Determining whether behavior was controllable influences not only how we judge others but also whether we approach them with empathy or blame.

Common Attribution Errors

While these four dimensions provide a framework for understanding attribution, errors are common. The fundamental attribution error often leads us to misjudge others by ignoring external factors and focusing too heavily on internal ones. Another common mistake is the self-serving bias, in which people explain their own successes as the result of internal, stable qualities, such as talent or effort, while attributing their failures to external, unstable circumstances, such as bad luck or unexpected obstacles. When observing others, this bias tends to reverse: successes are attributed to external factors, while failures are seen as internal flaws.

Consider the example of an employee missing a deadline. A manager might fall into the fundamental attribution error by assuming the missed deadline reflects laziness, lack of commitment, or poor time management—an internal, stable, and controllable cause. In reality, the delay may have been due to external and unstable factors, such as a family emergency, a sudden technical breakdown, or unclear instructions that were beyond the employee’s control. If the manager himself missed a deadline, however, he might invoke self-serving bias, attributing his own failure to an “unforeseen system crash,” thereby avoiding responsibility.

Self-Serving Bias

Self-serving bias is a common cognitive tendency where we attribute our own successes to internal, stable factors (like our abilities) and our failures to external, unstable factors (like bad luck). Conversely, when observing others, we often attribute their successes to external factors and their failures to internal ones. For example, if we show up late for class, we tend to attribute it to factors out of our control (like unexpected traffic) and see it as a one-time event. However, if a stranger shows up late for class, we are more likely to attribute it to the stranger’s poor character (e.g., being irresponsible or lazy) and believe they are late for everything.

Halo Effect

The halo effect is a cognitive bias where our overall perception of a person is influenced by one positive trait. If we perceive someone as being good in one area, we tend to assume they are good in other areas as well, even without sufficient evidence. This bias can lead to an overestimation of a person’s abilities or positive qualities and can prevent us from seeing their flaws or limitations. An example is assuming a charismatic speaker is also highly competent in their field is an example of the halo effect. The speaker’s engaging presentation style might lead you to believe they are an expert, even if you don’t have other information to support this conclusion. This can lead to misplaced trust or an overreliance on this person’s expertise. The halo effect can lead to biased perceptions and evaluations of others. In communication, it can result in an overestimation of someone’s abilities or intentions, potentially leading to poor decisions or misunderstandings.

Horn Effect

The horn effect is a cognitive bias where our overall perception of a person is influenced by one negative trait or behavior. If we perceive someone as having a significant flaw or engaging in an undesirable action, we tend to assume they possess other negative qualities as well, even without sufficient evidence. This bias can lead to an underestimation of a person’s abilities or positive characteristics and can prevent us from seeing their strengths or unique contributions. An example is when a new chef starts at a renowned restaurant, and during their first busy dinner service, they accidentally burn a batch of a complex sauce, causing a minor delay. This single mistake, despite the chef having previously demonstrated exceptional knife skills and creativity in other dishes, might cause the head chef to quickly assume they are generally careless or lack attention to detail. This initial negative impression could then overshadow the new chef’s overall talent and hard work in subsequent evaluations. The horn effect can lead to biased perceptions and negative evaluations of others. In communication, it can result in prematurely dismissing someone’s ideas, misinterpreting their intentions, or treating them unfairly based on an initial negative impression, thereby hindering effective collaboration and building trust.

6.4 Impact of Perceptual Processes on Communication

Misunderstandings

Different interpretations of the same message can lead to confusion. The perceptual processes described above can significantly contribute to misunderstandings in communication. Selective attention can cause individuals to focus on different aspects of a message, stereotyping can lead to biased interpretations of behavior, attribution errors can result in inaccurate judgments of intentions, and the halo effect can lead to misplaced trust or assumptions. These variations in perception can result in individuals interpreting the same message in different ways, leading to confusion, misinterpretations, and a breakdown in effective communication. An example of this is when a manager makes a general statement about the need for improvement, one employee might selectively focus on the word “improvement” and feel criticized, while another might focus on the implied potential for growth.

Bias

Preconceived notions can distort how we perceive and respond to others. Perceptual processes like stereotyping, the horn effect, and the halo effect can create biases that distort our perceptions of others. These biases can influence how we interpret their messages, how we react to their behavior, and how we interact with them. Bias can lead to unfair treatment, prejudice, and a lack of empathy in communication. An example is if you hold a stereotype that people from a certain region are lazy, you might interpret a colleague’s request for help as laziness rather than a genuine need for assistance.

Conflict

Misaligned perceptions can escalate tensions and create disagreements. When individuals have significantly different perceptions of a situation, it can lead to conflict. Misunderstandings arising from selective attention; biased judgments due to stereotyping, the horn effect, or the halo effect; and inaccurate attributions of behavior can all contribute to tensions and disagreements. Misaligned perceptions can create a cycle of negative communication and make it difficult to find common ground or resolve disputes. An example may be if one person attributes another’s lateness to disrespect, while the other person was genuinely delayed due to unforeseen circumstances, this misaligned perception can lead to an argument and damage the relationship.

6.5 Strategies to Minimize Communication Obstacles Caused by Perceptual Differences

Minimizing communication obstacles stemming from perceptual differences is crucial for fostering effective and harmonious interactions (Elder & Jaszczolt, 2024). This section will explore several key strategies designed to bridge these perceptual gaps. These strategies include practicing active listening to truly understand others by seeking clarification to ensure accurate comprehension, being mindful of personal biases, using clear and specific language, adapting to cultural differences, and providing context to reduce communicative ambiguity (Garg, 2023; Insigne, 2024; Stone, 2023). By implementing these techniques, individuals can significantly enhance their ability to communicate effectively, regardless of differing perceptions.

Active Listening

Active listening is a powerful tool to overcome perceptual differences by helping you focus on understanding the speaker’s perspective without judgment. It involves fully concentrating on what the speaker is saying, both verbally and nonverbally, and striving to understand their perspective without allowing your own biases or preconceived notions to interfere. To implement this, you should pay full attention by minimizing distractions and maintaining eye contact (if culturally appropriate). Resist the urge to formulate your own response while the other person is speaking and, instead, listen for understanding. You can confirm what you’ve heard by paraphrasing it in your own words, such as by saying, “So, you’re saying you need more time to complete the task?” If something is unclear, ask open-ended questions to gain more information. Finally, show empathy by trying to understand the speaker’s feelings and perspective, even if you don’t agree.

Be Aware of Biases

Our perceptions are often influenced by our own biases, assumptions, and stereotypes, which can lead to misinterpretations and unfair judgments. To minimize these obstacles, it’s essential to be aware of your own biases and actively challenge them through self-reflection. You should reflect on whether your thoughts and assumptions are facts or just inferences. For example, when we see a diaper ad with a woman and an infant, we infer they are mother and child, which may or may not be true. Consider how factors like age, gender, or past experiences might be influencing your perceptions and challenge generalized assumptions you might hold about certain groups of people. A great way to do this is to seek out diverse perspectives by engaging with people who have different backgrounds and viewpoints.

Use Clear and Specific Language

Ambiguous language is a major contributor to perceptual differences. To minimize these obstacles, it’s vital to use clear and specific language that avoids vague terms that can be interpreted differently. This involves choosing your words carefully and providing concrete details whenever possible. Avoid jargon or overly technical terms that can leave others bewildered. A great example of this is when a doctor tells a patient they need to be “NPO at 8 a.m. for a stat CABG.” The use of acronyms and Latin phrases can create a significant barrier, preventing the patient from understanding crucial instructions and leading to confusion and anxiety. Instead, be specific about time frames and deadlines, use concrete examples, and define key terms to ensure your message is understood as intended.

Adapt to Cultural Differences

Since culture significantly influences perception, it is crucial to adapt to cultural differences and adjust your communication style accordingly. This involves learning about cultural norms related to communication, such as the use of gestures, tone of voice, personal space, and directness. By researching the cultural norms and preferences of the people you are interacting with, you can be more mindful of nonverbal cues and adjust your tone and directness as needed. Adapting your communication style shows respect and understanding, which helps to minimize the risk of misinterpretations and fosters more effective communication across cultures.

Provide Context

Providing context helps others understand the reasoning behind your message, which reduces ambiguity and the potential for misinterpretation based on their own assumptions. When you explain the “why” behind your request or statement, you provide a framework that helps others understand your perspective and intentions. For example, rather than just saying, “I need this report revised,” you could say, “To ensure the data aligns with the latest market analysis and accurately reflects our current strategy, I need this report revised with the updated figures by tomorrow.” This context helps the team understand the critical purpose of the revision, preventing misinterpretations about its urgency or scope. This simple act helps to align perceptions by giving others the necessary information to understand your message from your perspective.

Use Perception-Checking Statements

Ensuring that your understanding of someone else’s behavior or words is accurate is key to strong communication. You can enhance communication by using perception-checking statements. These statements clarify confusion, address potential misunderstandings, and reduce potential conflicts. A perception-checking statement typically involves three steps. First, observe and describe the behavior or event using your five senses. Second, offer two thoughts or interpretations of the behavior, which reduces defensiveness and shows your goal is to seek clarity. Lastly, end with a clarification question to show your active interest in understanding the behavior and encourage the other person to engage with you. For instance, in a personal context, you might say, “I noticed you seemed quiet during our shift today. Are you feeling sick, or is something bothering you? How are you doing?” Using these statements helps improve communication by creating a mutual understanding of events and reducing conflict.

Real-World Application

 

Trisha and Gary are having a disagreement about chores around the house. Trisha, practicing active listening, says, “So, you’re saying you feel like you’re often doing a disproportionate share of the housework, and it’s making you feel stressed?”

Gary nods in agreement. To avoid ambiguity, Trisha asks for clarification, “When you say ‘often,’ could you give me a specific example of when you felt this way?”

Aware of her own potential biases, Trisha reflects on whether her perception of Gary’s contributions is influenced by her own expectations. She then uses clear and specific language, saying, “Moving forward, let’s create a rotating schedule for specific tasks like taking out the trash and doing the dishes.”

By employing these strategies, Trisha and Gary begin to understand each other’s perspectives better, reducing the potential for misinterpretations and working toward a fairer distribution of responsibilities in their relationship.

 

6.6 Chapter Summary

Perception plays a critical role in how we interpret and respond to communication. Differences in perception can lead to misunderstandings, bias, and conflict, but these challenges can be addressed through awareness and by employing effective strategies. This chapter explored how to identify situations where perceptions vary, evaluate the impact of perceptual processes, and minimize communication obstacles caused by perceptual differences. By applying these insights, you can foster clearer, more effective communication and build stronger relationships in both personal and professional settings.

Wrap-Up Questions

1. The chapter details how selective attention can lead to missing crucial information. Think of a recent time you were communicating with someone and realized you had selectively focused on only one part of their message. What caused your selective attention in that moment (e.g., your own interests, anxieties, or expectations), and how did it affect your understanding or response to the other person?
2. The halo effect and horn effect highlight how a single positive or negative trait can unduly influence our overall perception of a person. Consider a professional scenario (e.g., a job interview, a new team member joining). If you were the interviewer or team leader, how could you actively employ strategies to counteract these biases in your own perception, ensuring you evaluate individuals more objectively and avoid making premature judgments based on a single impressive?
3. Perception-checking statements are introduced as a three-step process: observation, two thoughts, and clarification. Imagine you are a manager and you notice an employee frequently leaves work exactly at 5:00 p.m., even when others are staying late. Construct a perception-checking statement you could use with this employee. Explain how each part of your statement (observation, two thoughts, clarification) helps to focus on the issue, not the person (from Chapter 5.2), and encourages open communication.

6.6 Learning Activities

6.7 References

Berger, C. R. (2020). Planning strategic interaction: Attaining goals through communicative action. Routledge.

Edwards, R. (2020). Being misunderstood as a person: The role of identity, reappraisal, and perspective-taking. Southern Journal of Communication, 85(5), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2020.1803394

Edwards, R., Frost, J., Harvey, A., Navarro, M., & Adams, B. T. (2020). Relationships among misunderstanding, relationship type, channel, and relational satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 37(5), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2020.1864313

Elder, C., & Jaszczolt, K. (2024). Towards a dynamic functional proposition for dynamic discourse meaning. Intercultural Pragmatics, 21(3), 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2024-3004

Garg, G. (2023). The art of connecting: Mastering communication skills for work and life. Gaurav Garg.

Hargie, O. (2021). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory, and practice. Routledge.

Honeycutt, J. M., & McCann, R. M. (2017). Imagined interactions. In Oxford research encyclopedia of communication.

Insigne, J. J. V. (2024). The comprehensive guide to communication: Theory and practice. Media Sun Productions.

McArthur, L. Z. (2022). What grabs you? The role of attention in impression formation and causal attribution. In Social cognition. Routledge.

Pohl, R. F. (2022). Cognitive illusions: Integrating phenomena in thinking, judgment, and memory. Routledge.

Stone, W. R. (2023). The art of effective communication: Unlocking your potential. Born Incredible.

Timplalexi, E. (2023). Challenging key certainties in communication through Ellestrom’s medium-centred model of communication: ‘Transfer’ and ‘medium’. Explorations in Media Ecology, 22(4), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1386/eme_00180_1

Tindale, C. W. (2022). Utterer meaning, misunderstanding, and cultural knowledge. Languages, 7(3), 172–183. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030172

Turner, W., Coleman, L., & King, T. (2020). Competent communication, 2e. Southwest Tennessee Community College. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Southwest_Tennessee_Community_College/Competent_Communication_-_2e

University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. (2016). Communication in the real world. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Introduction_to_Communication/Communication_in_the_Real_World_-_An_Introduction_to_Communication_Studies

Wrench, J. S., Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., & Thweatt, K. S. (2020). Interpersonal communication: A mindful approach to relationships. Milne Open Textbooks. https://milneopentextbooks.org/interpersonal-communication-a-mindful-approach-to-relationships/

Images:

OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT. (April 28 version) [Large language model]. https://chatgpt.com/

“Pure_Diversity,_Mirta_Toledo_1993” by Mirta Toledo is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT. (April 28 version) [Large language model]. https://chatgpt.com/